Large Format/"Premium" Theaters (IMAX 15/70, Digital IMAX, XD, ETX, RPX, etc.)

[ITDEFX101]

Speaking of IMAX....do they carry the Alexa in space for those documentaries?

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

So it's going to be presented in letterbox at Uvar just like STB... shit....

well yeah... it's a 4:3 screen

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I think because of the different textural/aesthetic/longevity value of film, also the high resolution and detail of IMAX 15/70 film, Kodak needs to improve the infrastructure around such productions so as to keep film alive and keep filmmakers committed to film (those who are still using it and those that want to). The problems associated with a celluloid production as SpikeM pointed out should be addressed by Kodak, IMAX. Because at the end of the day, this is all a business and convenience is key. People would not care as much about an aesthetic when they face too much difficulties.

The staunch film holdouts don't see its difficulties as being anything out of they ordinary, but the generation coming up clearly have a very different opinion. But what can Kodak do to make the day-to-day deployment of film any easier? There isn't a motion picture camera in the world that won't suffer from jamming or other such feed problems at some point, that's simply the nature of the beast. And given the extensive range of treatments that can be applied in the DI stage to apply a film 'look' - whereupon you can pick from a range of emulated real-world emulsions, even down how many perfs' worth, and vary grain according to the amount of light in the frame just as film would do, instead of being a blanket application - then something shot on digital can still provide a big part of that aesthetic anyway.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

well yeah... it's a 4:3 screen

Well what I am saying is that it won't go full frame for select scenes...

[GLaDOS]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Well what I am saying is that it won't go full frame for select scenes...

Rogue One wasn't filmed with IMAX cameras so it'll be constant 2.35:1 throughout. And IMAX Laser exhibits in the Smithsonian can go full frame for movies that were shot completely or partially in IMAX.

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by GLaDOS

Rogue One wasn't filmed with IMAX cameras so it'll be constant 2.35:1 throughout. And IMAX Laser exhibits in the Smithsonian can go full frame for movies that were shot completely or partially in IMAX.

Shhhhhheeeeat..... and I had 4 free passes to go see it at Uvar too

[Dubstar]

[whispers under breath] it's Udvar

just be glad Gareth didn't film this in 2.76 cause on a 4:3 the image would be like looking through a levolor blind

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

[whispers under breath] it's Udvar

just be glad Gareth didn't film this in 2.76 cause on a 4:3 the image would be like looking through a levolor blind

Sorry it was a typo that I caught on later but forgot to change it.. I could call it Airbus Imax :P

I am sure directors hate there still is no set standard when it comes to having their work projected as intended.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

...And given the extensive range of treatments that can be applied in the DI stage to apply a film 'look' - whereupon you can pick from a range of emulated real-world emulsions, even down how many perfs' worth, and vary grain according to the amount of light in the frame just as film would do, instead of being a blanket application - then something shot on digital can still provide a big part of that aesthetic anyway.

I am currently pursuing a cinematography course and even though they don't teach us film cameras (obviously), some of our practicing cinematographer/teachers and even many cinematographers around the world + directors feel that film captures a lot of depth which digital cameras are unable to at the moment. Also, I was told that Black & white film has hundreds of grey shades (don't remember the exact number) while digital has much much less. Which is why digital black & white looks nowhere near as rich and organic as its film counterpart.

Digital images almost always feel flat. Plus they have also said that film has a more richer contrast, wider colour gamut and works better even in harsh light conditions. In digital anything that's too bright, there's no information on those blown out areas. But in film, information still remains and in post adjustments, those details can be brought back. Digital obviously works better in darkness, however, aesthetically I prefer night scenes shot on film as they feel imperfect, and realistic, rather than the too perfect look of a digital footage.

In film there is a randomness of the image because the grain structure in each frame of film is different, whereas in digital, the censors are exactly in the same spot; rigid.

I have been seeing films at cinemas since 1994 and I have always noticed a rich textural vibrancy and sharpness; that tactile feeling of existence, which digitally shot movies always lack. Digital grading has made it a bit less obvious but the difference is still there.

If we lose film as a capture medium, there will be a great loss aesthetically. It's like taking away oil painting as a tool from an artist and being told to make do with crayons and water colour only.

Even as I say this, I know that I myself will have to shoot digitally due to economic reasons, at least initially. And there's no guarantee whether film will remain by the time I am actually able to rent film cameras. But still, I hold on to hope though being fully aware of the bleak future.

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

I am sure directors hate there still is no set standard when it comes to having their work projected as intended.

Well, from what I have seen, a 2.20:1 aspect screen fits both 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 ratios (the most common two) quite nicely without too much black bars in any of those projections. In contrast, a 1.85 movie feels quite small on a 2.39 screen and vice versa.

[antovolk]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Speaking of IMAX....do they carry the Alexa in space for those documentaries?

They used to ship the big 70mm film rigs off to space. Now in the documentaries they just shoot on DSLRs.

[Dubstar]

I was kind of surprised (and annoyed) Warner's didn't frame the IMAX 3D version of 'Fantastic Beasts' to take advantage of 4:3 screens like Sony did with 'Ghostbusters' - all the sfx shots breaking out and into the letterbox framing used were framed at 1.78 - oh well ... still it was visually fun and definitely worth checking out. Shameful that the Smithsonian is severely limiting the 3D presentations at Udvar Hazy's Airbus IMAX screen.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I am currently pursuing a cinematography course and even though they don't teach us film cameras (obviously), some of our practicing cinematographer/teachers and even many cinematographers around the world + directors feel that film captures a lot of depth which digital cameras are unable to at the moment. Also, I was told that Black & white film has hundreds of grey shades (don't remember the exact number) while digital has much much less. Which is why digital black & white looks nowhere near as rich and organic as its film counterpart.

Digital images almost always feel flat. Plus they have also said that film has a more richer contrast, wider colour gamut and works better even in harsh light conditions. In digital anything that's too bright, there's no information on those blown out areas. But in film, information still remains and in post adjustments, those details can be brought back. Digital obviously works better in darkness, however, aesthetically I prefer night scenes shot on film as they feel imperfect, and realistic, rather than the too perfect look of a digital footage.

In film there is a randomness of the image because the grain structure in each frame of film is different, whereas in digital, the censors are exactly in the same spot; rigid.

https://www.theasc.com/site/news/ste...on-image-prep/

Yedlin might interest you.

[Geoff D]

There's a nice piece here from Steven Poster about the whys and wherefores of the switch to digital. While it's fair to say there's a lot of people in the industry who love film, there's also a lot of people who love digital.

[Spike M.]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There's a nice piece here from Steven Poster about the whys and wherefores of the switch to digital. While it's fair to say there's a lot of people in the industry who love film, there's also a lot of people who love digital.

Great piece. I think a lot of the confusion about digital stems from the fact that up until very recently, you could make arguments about how film has a higher resolution or more latitude or a higher color gamut, etc. Back in the days of the Cinealta F35 and Red One and early Alexa set ups, that was certainly the case. That's empirically not true today, it's even reversed in some situations. People are now struggling to define what the difference actually is now that they can't fall back on science, and that's what excites me about Yedlin's research. He's really lifting the veil off a lot of the hooey and romance of celluloid capture and saying, with objective figures: "Film has a look. What is that look, scientifically, and why are we pretending that look is magical?"

I think it's exciting.

[ITDEFX101]

Is the Alexa the only camera out there right now? Couldn't Marvel (or the Director) use something else? That video about why marvel films look so ugly and the discussions here have really peaked my interests now and being more observant. What about other non Marvel movies? What where they filmed in? Movies with little or no digital effects like Hell or High Water (loved that movie).

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Is the Alexa the only camera out there right now? Couldn't Marvel (or the Director) use something else? That video about why marvel films look so ugly and the discussions here have really peaked my interests now and being more observant. What about other non Marvel movies? What where they filmed in? Movies with little or no digital effects like Hell or High Water (loved that movie).

IMAX still has the 15/70 film camera ready to use for director's who want it. I happen to find the Alexa line in general produce the best looking digital films (Skyfall, The Revenant, Hugo, etc.) but a lot of that comes down to how the director and DP use the cameras.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by ITDEFX101

Is the Alexa the only camera out there right now? Couldn't Marvel (or the Director) use something else? That video about why marvel films look so ugly and the discussions here have really peaked my interests now and being more observant. What about other non Marvel movies? What where they filmed in? Movies with little or no digital effects like Hell or High Water (loved that movie).

Hell or High Water used..........the Alexa

15/70 is indeed the daddy, but below that I still say it's not what you use but how you use it....

[ITDEFX101]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Hell or High Water used..........the Alexa

15/70 is indeed the daddy, but below that I still say it's not what you use but how you use it....

Really?? From what I remembered seeing it (HoHW), it looked really good and not washed out like a marvel movie.

[UFAlien]

A lot of it is down to color grading. So much of the "look" of a movie now is created in post-production digitally. You can have something very monotone and flat and something exploding with color and contrast shot on the same camera. Even the vast majority of movies still shot on film go through a digital intermediate where the "look" is finalized on computers.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

There's a nice piece here from Steven Poster about the whys and wherefores of the switch to digital. While it's fair to say there's a lot of people in the industry who love film, there's also a lot of people who love digital.

He does raise some good points. To me the primary issue is the current state of digital projection in theaters. I saw BvS in Dolby Vision when visiting the LA area and I was genuinely impressed. Even my two friends who aren't very picky when it comes to A/V quality noticed this. The next day we watched Zootopia on a standard 2K Christie projector at a different theater. You could immediately see how superior the DV presentation was. It would be even worse if the projector was a Sony as it would most likely have the 3D polarizer in place. I've specifically avoided AMC, Regal, etc theaters because the management can't be bothered to remove it for 2D movies.

I am a big film advocate and prefer it for recording and projection, but I can see the advantages of high quality digital projection. It's just like analog versus digital audio. SACD sounds lovely but it's dead as a release format and MP3 is king.

However, unlike the music industry, the movie industry is advancing camera technology. I am genuinely excited to see what Rogue One looks like with that sweet Alexa 65 goodness applied. I just wish that there were digital projectors out there that could show the full quality of the recorded image.